Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

Well, hmm. I. . . I'm good with that. But I don't want to change the logo, nor H.T.T.R. (though HTTS isn't much different), nor the song. So long as the "we're so offended by this, now, ignore the fact that we never ever brought it up, ever before 5 months ago" folks are good with that, I'm on board.

I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

I agree with all of that but since this is about a Football team it makes no sense. For example if some people in the congress were born in Norway would you say... And by my count, there are two Vikings? Of course not. See how silly this really is? This is the part people have trouble grasping.Then you have to ask yourself where does this end? It is like introducing a temp tax to the government. Once you roll over and let the minority voice rule then you are going to have chaos. No one group or groups of people will agree 100%

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!

+1

Even though it is principle, it also seems personal. I don't own the team but it feels like I am being robbed. It's coming. It will just take a while.

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!

+1

Even though it is principle, it also seems personal. I don't own the team but it feels like I am being robbed. It's coming. It will just take a while.

I don't usually like to look at Krauthammer, much less listen to him, but I liked the majority of the article. But I disagree where implies to change it the name to simply, "Skins". The article talks about how word usage/definitions change over time. "Redskins" is a perfect example of that. The meaning has changed from descriptive term of war paint, to a slur against Native Americans to now a football team. Be honest with yourself...if you were standing in a crowded area (let's say airport) and someone said to you, "Hey look, there's a Redskin over there", the first thought in your mind would be "oh I wonder which player it is", you wouldn't be trying to scan the crowd to look for a Native American. The whole thing is silly.

The issue brought up by the media recently, concerning the name of the Washington Redskins, is whether or not the team name and mascot is offensive to Native Americans. Obviously, one would have to discern what the term 'redskins' even means. The foremost and most obvious meaning of the word connotates the color of a Native American's skin. If this is the case, it'd be no different than 'white' or 'black'. In fact, there seems to be no etymological evidence that the word "redskin" originally meant anything other than "an aborigine with red skin". Another possible origin of the word is the red war paint that Native people wore, which evidently meant a lot to half-Sioux-blooded former Redskins coach William Dietz. The third, which might cause some to cringe, refers to scalping ones enemies and leaving behind a red-skined remnant.

In any case, it is a historical fact that the Boston Braves changed their name to the Redskins to honor William Dietz and his herritage, regardless of the word's specific meaning. Four players on the team at the time who were also Native-blooded did not object. Thus, for eighty-one years, the Washington NFL team has been labeled the Redskins. Now, one might easily (and correctly) deride the team if they abused Native Americans and their image; however, I have been to several Redskins games (alongside living with many Redskins fans, including my father), and I can personally vouch for the fact that the Redskins team and their fans only hold honor and respect for Native Americans and their way of live. "Hail to the Redskins" is sung after every touchdown, the oft-criticized mascot portrays an anatomically correct, valiant-looking, dignified Native American warrior and fans of all races defend their team and its honor no matter how poorly the team is performing. How can one say this is mocking Native Americans?

The word "redskins" is at worst ambigious, with no clear intent to do harm now nor in 1933 when the team first changed its name. Dan Synder (owner of the Redskins) says here that a vast majority Natives Americans aren't offended by the name; the source he cites is unbiased.

The Washington Redskins, despite any contradicting reports, only keep the Native American image alive without demeaning them in any way.

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. ?

This seems right: we should consider the number of induians in North America when Europeans arrived compared to the number today (amost wiped out); the living conditions of the survivors (shortest expected life-span, highest rates of many sorts of disease, alcoholism, whatever else).

The name of Washington's NFL team seems a trivial issue compared to the lives that indians live today and can expect.

Granted, I have hailed the Redskins for about sixty years, and part of me just doesn't want to change the name, but it does seem far down on any list of things to be remedied.

Commonality of usage matters. Where the comparison to other racial epithets falls short for me is in that the first thing most people think of when they hear "Redskins" is the professional football club. The same cannot be said for any of the other terms to which Redskins is being compared. Furthermore, if and when the term is used with a negative connotation it isn't capitalized. Capitalization is a sign of respect. The term has undoubtedly been used with a racist intent by someone, somewhere, at some time. So has that other term that some Blacks now use with one another like a term of endearment. Context matters there, and it matters here as well. #HTTR